Re: Maybe extinction of endangered species not so bad?

Serpent » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:45 pm wrote:I think we'll soon find out how well the compromises have turned out. More specifically, how essential flying insects had been to the grains and fruits that feed most of humanity.

I tend to agree but it isn't as if viable solutions are readily available.

A lot of what I have said was simply to point out that the complexity makes ecosystems unpredictable. It is also the case that we do not know what the long-term challenges are.

Societies are complex ecosystems in their own right and I will not assume that anyone is in a position to predict the consequences of proposed solutions.

My personal preference is to engineer the environment instead of taking the almost impossibly complex alternative of minimizing impacts. Again the consequences are unpredictable but this approach is more in harmony with the fact that the environment is not static. Part of that engineering is to artificially reduce population growth for which I'm sure I will be labeled a Nazi. Genocide of course is not the only way to reduce population growth.

The most evident example of genocidal approaches come from environmentalist not people like me. It can be argued that more people have been killed by malaria than any other cause but pesticides have been restricted in Africa in ways that would not be tolerated in the West. Environmental regulations in California have reduced Migrants in the hot center of the state to seek refuge in malls because they can't afford air conditioning. It gets tiresome listening to rich Westerners complain about environmental issues and propose regulations most people can't afford.

Re: Maybe extinction of endangered species not so bad?

... anymore. It could still be somewhat helpful to stop all the spraying everywhere, but that can't be done. Whatever might be effective can't be done.

A lot of what I have said was simply to point out that the complexity makes ecosystems unpredictable. It is also the case that we do not know what the long-term challenges are.

Our recent ancestors might have listened to the "tree-huggers" and "alarmists", instead of macing them. They might have dedicated some marginal resources to studying these existential issues. But since nothing can be done until it's been proven beyond a doubt, and there is never any money for respectable enough research and always plenty to fund the counter-propaganda, there is always doubt until the disaster has already come to pass.

My personal preference is to engineer the environment instead of taking the almost impossibly complex alternative of minimizing impacts.

In the Sunday afternoon disaster movies, the usual solution is to nuke it - whatever the threat is - three seconds before it hits Earth.

Part of that engineering is to artificially reduce population growth for which I'm sure I will be labeled a Nazi. Genocide of course is not the only way to reduce population growth.

There was never any need for that. Population growth was driven up artificially by several strong social forces, (including both communists and nazis, btw, who considered reproducing "our kind" as a patriotic duty), the most powerful being organized religion. In order to balance population with available resources, all anyone needed to do was empower women to control their own fertility, and allow non-viable persons to die when they were ready to. Even now, that would be quite helpful, if applied globally.But, of course, it can't be done.

The most evident example of genocidal approaches come from environmentalist not people like me.

So.... on the one hand, you want to reduce human population while preventing human deaths by natural causes. Overpopulation tends to increase human deaths by violence, though it's less efficient and more costly in terms of social upheaval and infrastructure loss, as well as money spent on weapons (bought at high interest) rather than community health.

It can be argued that more people have been killed by malaria than any other cause but pesticides have been restricted in Africa in ways that would not be tolerated in the West.

Maybe so. There's regulation in the west - sort of. Different in each country. In the US, spraying to protect cash crops is fine, even if harmful to animals and people; spraying to keep city populations free of non-threatening mosquito bites is fine; so is weed-spray to keep roadside maintenance costs down, even if the toxins get into the water and food supply. It's okay, because if the babies develop chronic asthma or allergies early enough, they'll never get health insurance, so they won't be a drain on profits. That can't be done.

Environmental regulations in California have reduced Migrants in the hot center of the state to seek refuge in malls because they can't afford air conditioning.

It could also be argued that nobody should live in exposed tin huts or trailers. It could be argued that peoples in hot climates had long ago developed building methods, such as earth-sheltered and adobe, planted arbours and and shade trees, or lived in house boats, to stay cool, and that they devised a work-day based on the movements of the sun, rather than the overseer's schedule, and that these time-tested methods might be worth investigating. It can be argued, but it can't be done.

It gets tiresome listening to rich Westerners complain about environmental issues and propose regulations most people can't afford.

Especially when Westerners put those poor people in the position they're in and created the problems that threaten them. Rather than stop creating and exacerbating problems, we should stop complaining. That, at least, can be done.

Re: Maybe extinction of endangered species not so bad?

wolfhnd » 29 Nov 2017 11:54 pm wrote:Nearly 1 billion people have been lifted out of absolute poverty in the last 20 years. It could of been better it could have been worse. I'm going with a glass half full.

Lifted out of absolute poverty seems like such a low bar, especially seeing how little resources that takes in relation to the enormous societal inequities in the world.

Re: Maybe extinction of endangered species not so bad?

Pyron has since posted, on his website and Facebook page, 1,100 words of frantic backpedaling that land somewhere between apology and retraction, including mea culpas that he “sensationalized” parts of his own argument and “cavalierly glossed over several complex issues.” But Pyron’s original essay and his muddled apology do not change the fact that the beliefs he expressed reflect a disturbing trend that has taken hold among segments of the conservation community. And his article comes at a time when conservation is being assailed from other quarters, with a half-century of federal protections of land being rolled back, the Endangered Species Act now more endangered than ever, and the relationship between extinction and evolution being subjected to confused, book-length mistreatment.

In particular, the headlines inserted for the piece for publication said "We don't need to save endangered species," and that "we should only worry about preserving biodiversity when it helps us." I did not write these words, I do not believe these things, and I do not support them.

Re: Maybe extinction of endangered species not so bad?

I thinks his views are a minority view that got too much publicity. I don't believe many ecologists of which I am one are going to give these comments by Pyron any credence. I think he ought to go learn something of the subject. Seriously.